Donate SIGN UP

Should Britain First Use Lee Rigby's Name In Their Campaigns?

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 07:30 Thu 21st Apr 2016 | News
91 Answers
Lee Rigby's family have repeatedly asked Britain First not to use their son's name in their broadcast and online materials, but they have ignored this.

As Lee is a national public figure, are BF right to go ahead and include references to him - or should they take into account the wishes of his family?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/drummer-lee-rigbys-family-blasts-7797593
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 80 of 91rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Avatar Image
jno - //I can't see why not. Rigby was a grown man. At some point, parents cease to have proprietorial rights over their children's identity. // That is true, but when their child meets a violent end at the hands of murderers, then the moral right to defend the use of his name by a fascist organisation surely reverts back to them? No doubt Lee Rigby would speak for...
09:05 Thu 21st Apr 2016
"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"

Good question aog.
viv41 - //"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"

Good question aog. //

It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered.
viv41

Than you once again Viv, but I don't think we will get an answer to that question.
Thank.
Good question to me !!
BF don't want to kill or maim me or terrorise me unlike islamic terrorists. You're welcome aog.
andy-hughes

/// It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction - evidence may be available, but not proof, so it is not a good question because it cannot be answered. ///

And that is exactly why it is only an 'emotionality action' thanks for admitting that Andy.

/// evidence may be available, but not
proof, ///

So in your reasoning you are prepared to victimised a group especially when there is no proof except an emotionality reaction.

After reading many of your posts over the years, I would have though your view of classing a person or group as guilty even though there is no proof.

At least there is plenty of proof for Britain First or any other such group's reaction.
Question Author
AOG

I wasn't making a value judgement. I was simply answering your question "What about far-left groups, should we also give them such pejorative names?"

The fact is, Far Left groups are given pejorative names.

You have said that Lee Rigby's family have asked 'ALL' political parties not to use his name in their campaigns.

That being the case, we should ask, if the other parties have honoured their wishes, why don't BF?
Question Author
naomi24

You asked:

SP, I don't use Facebook. I assume they've used the image, but how have they misappropriated it?

By using it against the wishes of his family.
Question Author
In answer to the question:

"Please give me some definite proof why I should hate them so much, in fact hate them more than the ones they are protesting against?"

Did someone tell you who to hate, or did someone state that they hate them?

Who is ordered whom to hate who?

(Before anyone pulls me up on this, I'm pretty sure I've got my whos and whoms in the right place).
Question Author
viv41

You wrote:

[i[BF don't want to kill or maim me or terrorise me unlike islamic terrorists. You're welcome aog.[i]

If your baseline for judging a group centres on their willingness (or otherwise) to kill or maim you, then that leaves an awful lot of groups who could potentially pass muster with you.

Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my family."
/// Did someone tell you who to hate, or did someone state that they hate them? ///

/// Who is ordered whom to hate who? ///

Well you could start with mikey.
/// If your baseline for judging a group centres on their willingness (or otherwise) to kill or maim you, then that leaves an awful lot of groups who could potentially pass muster with you. ///

/// Analogy - "Yes, that fella broke into my house, stole my telly, phone and jewellery, but at least he didn't kill me and my
family." ///

I think you will find that both Viv and myself are referring to actual major crimes committed under the name of Islam, but if need be I am sure we could come up with lesser crimes.

Your Analogy: that is why a lesser sentence is given for the less serious crimes.
SP, //By using it against the wishes of his family.//

That’s a lack of respect for the family’s wishes – but it isn’t misappropriation. I don’t think they’ve lied about what happened to Lee Rigby. That would be misappropriation. Mikey, take note.

andy-hughes, // It is not possible to offer proof of why anyone should possess an emotional reaction//

I’m not sure why you consider hatred of one group or another to be an emotional reaction. An opinion is often formed through reason. For example, I have an intense dislike of Islamic madmen who blow people to smithereens, but that dislike doesn’t emanate from emotion – it has arisen because I abhor what they do. No emotion involved in that decision.
Yes aog, I am referring to the actual major crimes of the islamic terrorists, obvious to me and you ....

BF would never aim to hurt me or mine like, that !
Oh yes and of course, I don't think they should use Lee Rigby's name if the family ask them not to !
andy, I agree, I think they are in the wrong; nonetheless, there are no moral certainties, and if doing what they've done is ok by their own standards, then I can't complain. His family may well protest, but when a person becomes public property (even totally involuntarily, as in Rigby's case), others have something invested in him too.

Voters can make up their own minds.
This from April 2014, apparently then it was the fault of the The Electoral Commission who apologised and promised that it never happens again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-27178888
Naomi - //I’m not sure why you consider hatred of one group or another to be an emotional reaction. An opinion is often formed through reason. For example, I have an intense dislike of Islamic madmen who blow people to smithereens, but that dislike doesn’t emanate from emotion – it has arisen because I abhor what they do. No emotion involved in that decision. //

I think this is a matter of semantics.

I believe that you do feel an emotion when you form those opinions, I do not think that once can exist without informing the other.
jno - //andy, I agree, I think they are in the wrong; nonetheless, there are no moral certainties, and if doing what they've done is ok by their own standards, then I can't complain. His family may well protest, but when a person becomes public property (even totally involuntarily, as in Rigby's case), others have something invested in him too. //

A fair point, but I would argue that actions within an individual moral code do not mean that objections cannot reasonably be raised by people whose moral code differs - that is part of life in a free society - they have a legal, of not moral right to do it, and the majority of us on here have the same rights to object to it.

61 to 80 of 91rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should Britain First Use Lee Rigby's Name In Their Campaigns?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.